Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 16-69148 DATE: 2018/08/08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: GABRIELLE ROY, Plaintiff AND: OTTAWA CAPITAL AREA CRIME STOPPERS and OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD, Defendants

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Calum MacLeod

COUNSEL: Richard R. Marks, for the Plaintiff (Responding Party) Ashlee Barber, for the Defendant Crime Stoppers (Moving Party) Jeremy Wright, for the Defendant Ottawa Police Services Board (Moving Party)

HEARD: IN WRITING

Supplementary Reasons and Costs

[1] Following release of my decision in respect of the summary judgment motion, I received two pieces of correspondence. The first was from Mr. Marks indicating that my reasons were silent on a certain argument made by the plaintiff with respect to the Crime Stoppers defence.

[2] The second was a letter indicating the parties had agreed on costs.

S. 3 of the Libel and Slander Act

[3] The plaintiff had argued that Crime Stoppers could not rely upon s. 3(3) of the Act because it was not pleaded. In addition she had argued that s. 3(7) of the Act states that the defence is not available if the plaintiff shows that the defendant refused to broadcast a reasonable statement or explanation by or on behalf of the plaintiff.

[4] It is accurate that my reasons do not address these points directly. That was an omission. A statutory defence must be pleaded and Crime Stoppers appears to have omitted to do so. On the other hand the pleading may be amended at any stage of the proceeding and the plaintiff was on notice that this defence was asserted by crime stoppers since it is clearly set out in the motion material and factum.

[5] I therefore permitted Crime Stoppers to amend the defence to rely on s. 3(3) of the Act. My reasons should have made this clear.

[6] S. 3(7) of the Act can only apply if there was a demand to publish a retraction. In this case, there was no refusal to publish a retraction. The plaintiff’s then counsel had written to Crime Stoppers demanding that the publication be removed and while that was not done within the time initially provided, it was removed shortly thereafter. Counsel then wrote to say that no further action would be taken and seemingly indicated that the plaintiff was satisfied. Under those circumstances there is no refusal which would vitiate the effect of s. 3(3).

[7] There was an unexplained delay between the time when Mr. Reesink sent his demand letter and the time when it was apparently seen by Crime Stoppers and forwarded to the police. This issue may be relevant to the claim in negligence but it is not a refusal to publish an explanation.

Costs

[8] The parties have agreed that as between the plaintiff and the Ottawa Police Services Board, there will be no order as to costs.

[9] The parties have also agreed that as between the plaintiff and Ottawa Capital Area Crime Stoppers, costs of the motion shall be payable in the cause and are to be fixed by the trial judge.

[10] Order to go accordingly.

Mr. Justice C. MacLeod Date: August 8, 2018

COURT FILE NO.: 16-69148 DATE: 2018/08/08 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RE: GABRIELLE ROY, Plaintiff AND: OTTAWA CAPITAL AREA CRIME STOPPERS and OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD, Defendants BEFORE: Mr. Justice Calum MacLeod COUNSEL: Richard R. Marks, for the Plaintiff (Responding Party) Ashlee Barber, for the Defendant Crime Stoppers (Moving Party) Jeremy Wright, for the Defendant Ottawa Police Services Board (Moving Party) HEARD: May 15th, 2018 SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS AND COSTS Mr. Justice Calum MacLeod

Released: August 8, 2018